Judgment summary
The plaintiff, Isaac Abedu Ayim, was an employee of the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority, previously stationed at Wa, until his statutory retirement in 2019 (para 2).
He was nominated to the newly formed Revenue Protection Unit (RPU) of the GRA per a circular dated 16th May 2017 and worked at the RPU in Tema, KIA and TOR from 26th May 2017 until 22nd May 2019, when he was asked to return to the Wa Collection point (para 2).
The plaintiff claimed that under Article 33(g) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) dated 2014 between the defendant and the Public Service Workers Union (PSWU) of GTUC, he was entitled to accommodation or reimbursement for private hotel costs, and to out-of-station and night allowances, which the defendant failed to provide for the two-year period (paras 2, 6).
The defendant contended that the plaintiff's reassignment was a transfer, that Article 33(g) did not apply to him, and that it had the authority to reassign staff to any station at any time under Article 34(i) of its own document (paras 3, 6).
The court examined the plaintiff's exhibits (A, A1, C, C1, E) and the defendant's exhibit (3/Article 34(i)) and found a clear distinction between a 'transfer' and a special 'assignment/re-assignment', concluding that the plaintiff's movement was the latter, not a transfer (para 6, Issue 1).
The court found that Article 33(g) of the CBA applied to the plaintiff because his reassignment required him to spend nights away from his recognised station of employment (para 6, Issue 2).
The court also found that the plaintiff was requested to report back to his mother unit, Wa Collection, upon the dissolution of the RPU/RSU, based on exhibits C and C1, which the defendant did not deny (para 6, Issue 3).
The court held that the plaintiff had established his case and granted judgment in his favour on all the reliefs sought, including a declaration of entitlement to outstation and night allowances, an order for payment of accrued allowances from 26th May 2017 to 22nd May 2019, interest at the prevailing Bank of Ghana rate from 23rd May 2019 to the date of final payment, and costs of GHC 10,000.00 (para 7).
Background
The plaintiff was an employee of the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority, stationed at Wa, until his statutory retirement in 2019 (para 2).
Following the formation of the Revenue Protection Unit (RPU) of the GRA, he was nominated as one of its officers per a circular dated 16th May 2017 and was reassigned from the Wa Collection point to the RPU at Tema, KIA and TOR Collection, where he worked from 26th May 2017 until 2nd May 2019, when he was asked to return to the Wa Collection (para 2).
The plaintiff relied on Article 33(g) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the defendant and the Public Service Workers Union (PSWU) of GTUC dated 2014, which provided for accommodation in the Authority's Guest House or, if unavailable, a private hotel not exceeding the Guest House rate, with reimbursement by the defendant (para 2).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not comply with this agreement and did not provide accommodation or meals for the two-year period he worked in the newly formed units (para 2).
Core dispute
The dispute concerned whether the plaintiff's reassignment from the Wa Collection point to the Revenue Protection Unit (RPU) at Tema, KIA and TOR constituted a 'transfer' under Article 33 of the CBA, or a special assignment attracting outstation and night allowances under Article 33(g) (para 4).
The defendant argued that the reassignment was a transfer under its Article 34(i), which permitted staff to be moved to any region in Ghana, and that Article 33(g) therefore did not apply to the plaintiff (para 3, para 6).
The plaintiff argued that his movement was not a transfer but a special assignment, entitling him to be paid out-of-station and night allowances, and to accommodation or reimbursement for private hotel costs, for the two-year period he worked away from his recognised station (para 2, para 6).
The issues set out for trial were whether the letter assigning the plaintiff to the RPU constituted a transfer letter, whether Article 33(g) of the CBA applied to the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was requested to report back to his mother unit upon dissolution of the RPU, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs claimed (para 4).
Court findings
On Issue 1, the court compared the plaintiff's exhibits A, A1 and E with the defendant's exhibit 1 (Article 34(i)) and found a clear distinction between a transfer, whether permanent or temporary, and an assignment or re-assignment for special purposes. The court found that the plaintiff's movement to the RPU and later the Revenue Surveillance Unit (RSU) was an assignment for special purposes and not a transfer, noting that the defendant continued to record Wa as the plaintiff's service station (para 6).
On Issue 2, the court held that because the plaintiff's reassignment required him to spend nights away from his recognised station of employment, Article 33(g) of the CBA was applicable to him (para 6).
On Issue 3, the court found, based on exhibits C and C1 and the defendant's failure to deny the assertion, that the plaintiff was requested to report back to his mother unit, Wa Collection, upon the dissolution of the RPU (para 6).
The court applied the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities under Section 12(1) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323), citing Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR 190, Owusu v Tabiri & Anor [1987-88] 1 GLR 287-293, and Ackah v Pergah Transport & Ors [2010] SCGLR 728, and found that the plaintiff discharged this burden (para 5).
Outcome
The court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff on all reliefs sought (para 7).
The court declared that, per the CBA dated 2014 between the defendant and the PSWU, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid outstation and night allowance (para 7(1)).
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the accrued out-of-station and night allowances from 26th May 2017 to 22nd May 2019, the period he was reassigned to work out of his station in the RPU, Tema (para 7(2)).
Interest was ordered to be calculated on the said sum from 23rd May 2019 to the date of final payment at the prevailing Bank of Ghana rate (para 7(3)).
Costs of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 10,000.00) were awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant (para 7(4)).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the letter assigning the plaintiff to the Revenue Protection Unit constituted a transfer letter (para 4(a))
- Whether the provision in Article 33(g) of the CBA of the GTUC dated 2014 was applicable to the plaintiff (para 4(b))
- Whether the plaintiff was requested to report back to his mother unit, Wa Collection, upon the dissolution of the Revenue Protection Unit (RPU) (para 4(c))
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs claimed (para 4(d))